Bonn1997 wrote:So your answer is "no," you can't provide any quotes from identified people.

Whatever, pal.

If that's your only argument then you already lost.

And they don't deserve more than 50%.

They have free agency. They have a minimum salary that most normal humans would die to have, even for three or four years. They have a pension.

They have to live out of a suitcase, albeit a suitcase you'd probably never be able to afford the payments on, for the life of their career.
They have the spectre of injury.
They could be traded to someplace they don't like.
Their overpriced existence includes having to deal with overpaid coaches.

Shut up, take the FUHUCKING 46% or whatever the FUHUCK it is, suit up and and go effing PLAY.

Vmart wrote:I don't understand why the players feel so entitled. Just how much did the Melo and LeBrons of the world shell out to own their teams? $0, If I'm the owners I tell these bitches to F off. The players didn't shell out $250 million or $500 million or more to own a team. Another group of players will come along that will play for a lot less money and still give 100% effort for the love of the game.

Don't be silly. The players are the game and where the game before the NBA existed! No one cares about owners. Fans are paying to see these players in non NBA games. If tomorrow there was A new league with these players fans would be interested. Owners are opportunists and have benefited from the talents of players and not the other way around.

Owners have been their own worst enemy. The last CBA was supposed to bring them prosperity and why didn't it work? It's not the players fault. Players accepted less money and a cap on the highest contract they could earn and the owners still messed up the finances. They just had a record year in revenue, even during a recession and the owners still messed that up! The players put on a great performance with high TV ratings and the owners still messed up.

jrodmc wrote:The players should play. This isn't 1930. Twiddling away the season over percentages of the gate when they each operate as their own effing individual enterprise that couldn't give two sheehits about any other player/enterprise when they smell a larger contract or a better situation somewhere else.

They have free agency. They have a minimum salary that most normal humans would die to have, even for three or four years. They have a pension.

They have to live out of a suitcase, albeit a suitcase you'd probably never be able to afford the payments on, for the life of their career.
They have the spectre of injury.
They could be traded to someplace they don't like.
Their overpriced existence includes having to deal with overpaid coaches.

Shut up, take the FUHUCKING 46% or whatever the FUHUCK it is, suit up and and go effing PLAY.

Clearly you're not a lawyer or a talent rep. It's not about how much they make (or have made) relative to the average Joe. It's about what's fair based on the contributions made to the product and on the overall revenue projections in the future. I agree that they should make a deal, but just saying "STFU and take it" is really puerile. The players will accept a fair deal, and they are just trying to get the owners to the point of accepting one. I think 51% for the players is where it will get done.

I would prefer a profit sharing arrangement. Players should take on some of the risk, and the reward.

Bottom line is without new owners and fresh capital there are less teams. Contract two teams thats 30 less jobs. Might be good for fans on short term basis but owners see it as a $900 million dollar loss (teams worth $450mm each).

Fresh capital also has benefits. Dan Gilbert may be a bit high strung but he has been very proactive to increase the fan experience and has made moves post lebron that will keep the team relevant so long as the youth movement pans out.

Cuban was the posterchild of the new owner and after a decade of frustration finally has a championship and a successful franchise. He treats the players like the stars they are and the fan experience comes first.

Memphis has turned itself around in a small market and many years. Minnesota looks like it might be turning the corner and has invested big money in a proven coach. Milwaukee and Indiana are also getting better. Small market teams can succeed and if winning their TV revenue on a regional basis can really expand its revenue. Ok Thunder has been a great story of rebuilding a franchise in a fresh market thru the draft. They got a star and while he is content for now I can see how Thunder would be hurt if Durant bolted for chicago.

A healthy league top to bottom is more valuable to all parties. Players and fans alike. I suppose its important that small market teams keep their stars in place. Teams can always orchestrate a trade for a player who wants to move but the devastation of a player leaving witout any compensation is an owner concern. Sure we as knick fans love player movement as we think we are the recieving end but imagine a 27 year old Ewing bolting without compensation in 1993 to join the Bulls? Kareem left the Bucks so many years ago and Milwaukee stayed competitive despite some bone head moves. Lakers had to eat about 2 years of losses even with Kareem until Worth and Magic were drafted. They had a plan.

Jerry BUss of the lakers primary asset is the Lakers.

The league has tried very hard to not have the teams become p

Should players pay for the failure of George Shinn (Hornets owner) or any other weak team is not the key issue, its about the league as a whole and the sum of the pieces do add up.

IF we must assign blame it looks like even between owners who naturally want to cover their debt and make a profit and players who of course don't want a pay cut for any reason.

Well, if there was another market that could compensate the player at a higher level then you have leverage.

Vmart wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Vmart wrote:I don't understand why the players feel so entitled. Just how much did the Melo and LeBrons of the world shell out to own their teams? $0, If I'm the owners I tell these bitches to F off. The players didn't shell out $250 million or $500 million or more to own a team. Another group of players will come along that will play for a lot less money and still give 100% effort for the love of the game.

Maybe the owners and the players can each start their own new leagues. I'll start watching the players' league with guys like Lebron, Wade, and Dirk. You can stick with the owners and watch whatever product guys like James Dolan can put on the court.

You can watch LeBRon when he is 40+ and can't seem to walk away from the game because he owns the team. You don't think LeBron and Wade and whoever isn't gonna have to deal with the same shyt that these owners deal with.

If LeBRon is learning anything right now, it's that an NBA team is obviously not a good investment.

And anyone who thinks that a bunch of overhyped, overpaid superegos have the brains or the dedication to the game to start and run their own league, when half of them can't stay solvent or even married, needs to eat more fish.

Case in point: our own beloved IT.

Nalod wrote:
If finance is not a part of the way teams are bought, then how else should they be bought?

If you have teams that are not well financed by any means, then would franchise's be stronger?

Part of the attraction of owning a team is making money.

Mark Cuban invests a lot back into the franchise. Winning teams make money.

I agree, but according to some, owning a team is supposed to be a hobby in which losing millions is not only expected, but accepted...

jrodmc wrote:The players should play. This isn't 1930. Twiddling away the season over percentages of the gate when they each operate as their own effing individual enterprise that couldn't give two sheehits about any other player/enterprise when they smell a larger contract or a better situation somewhere else.

They have free agency. They have a minimum salary that most normal humans would die to have, even for three or four years. They have a pension.

They have to live out of a suitcase, albeit a suitcase you'd probably never be able to afford the payments on, for the life of their career.
They have the spectre of injury.
They could be traded to someplace they don't like.
Their overpriced existence includes having to deal with overpaid coaches.

Shut up, take the FUHUCKING 46% or whatever the FUHUCK it is, suit up and and go effing PLAY.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

nixluva wrote:

Vmart wrote:I don't understand why the players feel so entitled. Just how much did the Melo and LeBrons of the world shell out to own their teams? $0, If I'm the owners I tell these bitches to F off. The players didn't shell out $250 million or $500 million or more to own a team. Another group of players will come along that will play for a lot less money and still give 100% effort for the love of the game.

Don't be silly. The players are the game and where the game before the NBA existed! No one cares about owners. Fans are paying to see these players in non NBA games. If tomorrow there was A new league with these players fans would be interested. Owners are opportunists and have benefited from the talents of players and not the other way around.

Owners have been their own worst enemy. The last CBA was supposed to bring them prosperity and why didn't it work? It's not the players fault. Players accepted less money and a cap on the highest contract they could earn and the owners still messed up the finances. They just had a record year in revenue, even during a recession and the owners still messed that up! The players put on a great performance with high TV ratings and the owners still messed up.

really? I disagree.. THE NBA is the game, people are paying money to watch players play. the owners own that product.. tell me, have you paid to watch any of these NBA players play street ball? or at the local gym? I can answer that for you... NO!!! and you probably never will..

People are buying the NBA product, one in which the owners spend billions to put out there... I mean this mess that the people don't pay to see the owners is getting old... We are paying to see their product... Their product!!! when the players shell out billions,of dollars to buy 30 teams, and form a league, then they can feel entitled to 57% of the money...

But sources told Broussard that Stern, Silver and San Antonio Spurs owner Peter Holt, in a small-group meeting with Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, Derek Fisher and union lawyer Jeffrey Kessler -- really offered the players 49 percent of BRI, with the understanding that it would actually become 51 percent based on incentives related to the projected growth of the league.

The players countered by asking for 51 percent, which would increase to 53 percent based on those same incentives. The owners rejected that.

After making concessions on basketball revenue, the players entered the last several negotiating sessions looking for the owners to do the same.

Stern said the owners had removed their demand for a hard salary cap, were no longer insisting on salary rollbacks on current salaries, and would have given players the right to opt out of a 10-year agreement after seven years. But the money split was always going to be the biggest hurdle in these negotiations, with owners insistent on the ability to turn a profit after the league said 22 of its 30 teams lost money last season.

The owners indeed wanted to make a deal to save the start of the season, none more than New York Knicks owner James Dolan, sources told Broussard.

Stern said the league is about to take a $200 million hit from missing the preseason. "There's an extraordinary hit coming to the owners and the players," he warned.

________

I always said a settlement around 52% would be fair. Dolan wanted to make a deal because it is obvious the Knicks are raking in millions even under the old system. It is easy to compromise when you are just cutting up profit (i.e. the NFL), as opposed to talking about losses. I support the players on this. NBA said it lost $300 million, so the players gave them back $200 million and told them to make up the other $100 million in revenue sharing, which is done in the NFL and MLB. The big market teams said no to significant revenue-sharing, so now the owners are trying to squeeze the last $100 million out of the players.